as for Nader, if he runs again this time around there's a good chance he'll still get my vote. until a major party canidate endorses some of his more important (to me) ideals he's the best fit for my vote. why wouldn't i vote for him?
i know it's the same tired argument, but we'll never get out of a two party system if people aren't ever willing to vote for a third party canidate.
not to mention if nader had gotten 5% of the vote he'd have been able to participate this year in the presidential debates. (i think it's 5%)
as for Nadar, if he runs again this time around there's a good chance he'll still get my vote. until a major party canidate endorses some of his more important (to me) ideals he's the best fit for my vote. why wouldn't i vote for him?
i know it's the same tired argument, but we'll never get out of a two party system if people aren't ever willing to vote for a third party canidate.
We're in a two party system for precisely the same reason that I think it would be folly for you to vote for Nadir . . . namely, that we Don't have a parlementary system
we have two parties because everybody knows that is they don't vote for their guy then the other party will win . . . it was proven last time and will happen again if Nadahr throws his hair piece in.
I think the argument against Nader running specifically and third parties generally is pretty well-founded. It's a result of our voting system. I would highly recommend reading that Scientific American article that Kickaha alerted us to. It's subscription only- but I can get it off EBSCOhost if you'd like.
I'd be interested in reading that.
But let me state clearly: I hop Nadar doesn't run. Because if Nadir runs, then Nedir will make me mad. That damn Nador. Didn't Nudir run in 2000? I think Mader ran in 2000. And didn't Jatur take a lot of votes? I think Hudey will do the same thing this time. So I hope Kreyr doesn't run.
But let me state clearly: I hop Nadar doesn't run. Because if Nadir runs, then Nedir will make me mad. That damn Nador. Didn't Nudir run in 2000? I think Mader ran in 2000. And didn't Jatur take a lot of votes? I think Hudey will do the same thing this time. So I hope Kreyr doesn't run.
Waiter! I'll have a drink or hit of what he's having please.
But let me state clearly: I hop Nadar doesn't run. Because if Nadir runs, then Nedir will make me mad. That damn Nador. Didn't Nudir run in 2000? I think Mader ran in 2000. And didn't Jatur take a lot of votes? I think Hudey will do the same thing this time. So I hope Kreyr doesn't run.
We're in a two party system for precisely the same reason that I think it would be folly for you to vote for Nadir . . . namely, that we Don't have a parlementary system
we have two parties because everybody knows that is they don't vote for their guy then the other party will win
in which case you're your own worst enemy. YOU perpetuate the two party system with your beliefs and defensive voting. next time you're frustrated with the two party system, look in a mirror for who to blame.
in which case you're your own worst enemy. YOU perpetuate the two party system with your beliefs and defensive voting. next time you're frustrated with the two party system, look in a mirror for who to blame.
Pffft.
With all due respect, Alcimedes, you don't know what you're talking about. Duverger's Law states that a winner-take-all or plurality voting system naturally leads to a two-party system. It's ridiculous to blame people's attitudes when the underlying structure is not present for allowing third party candidates to succeed. We need real voting system reform in this country.
I would suggest reading "The Fairest Vote of All," the Scientific American article that Kickaha recommended. It provides a good overview of voting systems and suggests an alternative to our terrible system. I can forward it to you if you'd like.
first, thanks for the article shawn. it was an interesting read.
however, i disagree with basically the entire text, and i didn't really see where it said that you'd always be stuck with a two party system in a majority rules election style.
in fact, the first example they gave (of the French election) had a majority rule setup, where a non major party canidate made it to the final round.
the article also doesn't account for the fact that third part senators, congressmen and govenors have been elected many times.
the only ones who lock anyone into a two party system are defensive voters.
But let me state clearly: I hop Nadar doesn't run. Because if Nadir runs, then Nedir will make me mad. That damn Nador. Didn't Nudir run in 2000? I think Mader ran in 2000. And didn't Jatur take a lot of votes? I think Hudey will do the same thing this time. So I hope Kreyr doesn't run.
That is so funny that I was laughing as I was laying in bed last night thinking about it . .. it was hard not to wake my wife, so i tried not to laugh which just made me laugh harder . . heehee
Josh Marshall had an interesting piece on all of this. It seems that Nadir won't be running as a Green Party Candidate, which suggests that he's just trying to be a spoiler again. Marshall suggests that this is little more than egomania.
I would suspect that, after the 2000 election debacle, those who are opposed to Bush would be less inclined to vote for a candidate who is generally regarded as unelectable.
In the end, I find all of this pretty sickening. The very idea that good folks would tell a third-party candidate not to run is simply anti-democratic. If Nadir (or Perot, or anyone else) wants to run, he should be able to run. If people worry about Nadir "taking votes away from X" (as if those votes belong to anyone in the first place), they should wage a campaign informing voters why they shouldn't vote for him. It's that simple.
I think that a few things are worth noting:
1) In the last election, GWB was generally regarded by Democrats are a joke of a candidate who was unelectable on his face.
2) The more left leaning liberals didn't particular feel any harm would be done by voting for Nader, partially because of #1, and partially because they tend to see little difference between Republicans and Democrats at the national level.
3) The divisive split indicated by the voters in 2000 (i.e. that the country seemed ot have been "split down the middle") is less indicative, I think, of a political polarization as it is of a) the weakness of both candidates in 2000 and b) the increasingly small degree of difference between a Republican and a Democrat at the National level. (As an aside, this is why I always find it funny that people refer to Clinton as a liberal, since the hallmark of his "New Democrat-ness" was that he was effectively a conservative: NAFTA, balanced budgets, etc.)
i know it's the same tired argument, but we'll never get out of a two party system if people aren't ever willing to vote for a third party canidate.
Why in God's name would we not want a two party system? Two party systems are the most stable political entities out there. It avoids the need to form messy and unstable "coalition" government. The only potential weakness is the risk of "cohabitation."
I'll take the American/Britain democratic experience over that of the older French republics or Italy any day of the week.
Quote:
not to mention if nader had gotten 5% of the vote he'd have been able to participate this year in the presidential debates. (i think it's 5%)
he would have completely destroyed Bush. [/B]
To participate in the debates you must be polling at least 15% in the Gallup polls. What you're thinking of is presidential matching funds from the Federal government. Those funds would have gone to the Green Party, not Nader. And they'd have done as little good for the Greens as they did for Buchanan's Reform Party in 2000 ? they're whacko far afield from the American center, which is a bit right of the Democrats, a bit left of the Republicans.
I hope Nader chokes on a sandwich or something and ends up in a coma for the next eleven months.
however, i disagree with basically the entire text, and i didn't really see where it said that you'd always be stuck with a two party system in a majority rules election style.
That's simply reality. On a large scale, first-past-the-post systems produce a two party system. All pure FPTP systems are two party (America, Britain being the only two really important ones). FPTP systems encourage coalitions to form prior to elections, not afterwards, since the difference is getting one less vote or one more vote may be that of getting no representation and total representation in a certain area. Therefore, coalitions form early, and coalesce into two parties, which are broad-based parties representing, each, the views of 40% or more of the population. These coalitions are long-lasting, surviving over the course of multiple election cycles, and thus are solid and do not fracture easily.
In most representational systems, you aren't even voting for candidates, but for parties, which are then allocated seats, which they fill based on candidate rolls. Thus any party that can get more than 5% or so of the populace to vote for them can be guaranteed representation. Coalitions form after the elections in representational model systems. However, the coalitions are much weaker, making the governments much less stable.
Quote:
in fact, the first example they gave (of the French election) had a majority rule setup, where a non major party canidate made it to the final round.
The French do not have a true FPTP system, but one of run-offs, where only the second vote is truly FPTP (though any two-person race of course produces not only a FPTP winner, but a majority winner). The French system is one where the "coalitions" so to speak form mid-election, between the initial vote and the run-off. This fosters a multi-party system, but one in which two parties dominate over smaller parties, as is the case in France. It is a hybrid system (and the system most prone to problematic cohabitation).
Quote:
the article also doesn't account for the fact that third part senators, congressmen and govenors have been elected many times.
Actually, given the number of congressional, senatorial and gubernatorial seats elected in any given voting year, the number of third party wins is miniscule, and represents the fact that in America, like-minded individuals often gravitate to certain communities. However, the ability of a third party to elect one congressman out of 435, or even a governor, speaks more to regional differences than to an inaccuracy of the laws regarding FPTP voting systems.
The American presidential system, particularly, requires two parties, and no more, lest a candidate fail to win a majority in the Electoral College. The only instance where this happened was in 1824, a transitional year where the Federalist Party had floundered, and the Republican Party of Jefferson (not to be confused with the GOP) was beginning its painful split into the Democrats, the National Republicans and (later) the Whigs. There were several credible presidential candidates that year, all running atop factions of the Jeffersonian Republican Party. It was a disaster in which the wrong person was put in the White House.
Aside from 1824, the only times you see third parties emerging in any real way are when a major party splits, almost inevitably leading to the defeat of that party (the GOP in 1908 and 1992, the Democrats in 1944 - though Truman narrowly won) or when you enter a period of majority party displacement, such as in the 1850s and 1860, when the Republicans first split from, then destroyed and replaced the Whigs.
Other than that, third parties in presidential politics serve no useful function (and the above functions are hardly useful, either). A third party by its very nature is a party attempting to promote an orthodoxy or platform that is far afield from the American center, otherwise its positions would have been long ago absorbed by one of the majority parties.
A third party can never win an election. It can only cause the majority party closest to its views to lose.
Comments
Originally posted by Aries 1B
You guys are great.
"Collective nightmare"... classic!
At least Nader has some principles; some consistent principles.
Aries 1B
I was referencing a famous Onion article . . . that I am too tired to find
"weedle" is what it sounds like.
as for Nader, if he runs again this time around there's a good chance he'll still get my vote. until a major party canidate endorses some of his more important (to me) ideals he's the best fit for my vote. why wouldn't i vote for him?
i know it's the same tired argument, but we'll never get out of a two party system if people aren't ever willing to vote for a third party canidate.
not to mention if nader had gotten 5% of the vote he'd have been able to participate this year in the presidential debates. (i think it's 5%)
he would have completely destroyed Bush.
Originally posted by alcimedes
wheedle.
as for Nadar, if he runs again this time around there's a good chance he'll still get my vote. until a major party canidate endorses some of his more important (to me) ideals he's the best fit for my vote. why wouldn't i vote for him?
i know it's the same tired argument, but we'll never get out of a two party system if people aren't ever willing to vote for a third party canidate.
We're in a two party system for precisely the same reason that I think it would be folly for you to vote for Nadir . . . namely, that we Don't have a parlementary system
we have two parties because everybody knows that is they don't vote for their guy then the other party will win . . . it was proven last time and will happen again if Nadahr throws his hair piece in.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
I think the argument against Nader running specifically and third parties generally is pretty well-founded. It's a result of our voting system. I would highly recommend reading that Scientific American article that Kickaha alerted us to. It's subscription only- but I can get it off EBSCOhost if you'd like.
I'd be interested in reading that.
But let me state clearly: I hop Nadar doesn't run. Because if Nadir runs, then Nedir will make me mad. That damn Nador. Didn't Nudir run in 2000? I think Mader ran in 2000. And didn't Jatur take a lot of votes? I think Hudey will do the same thing this time. So I hope Kreyr doesn't run.
Originally posted by BRussell
I'd be interested in reading that.
But let me state clearly: I hop Nadar doesn't run. Because if Nadir runs, then Nedir will make me mad. That damn Nador. Didn't Nudir run in 2000? I think Mader ran in 2000. And didn't Jatur take a lot of votes? I think Hudey will do the same thing this time. So I hope Kreyr doesn't run.
Waiter! I'll have a drink or hit of what he's having please.
Originally posted by BRussell
I'd be interested in reading that.
But let me state clearly: I hop Nadar doesn't run. Because if Nadir runs, then Nedir will make me mad. That damn Nador. Didn't Nudir run in 2000? I think Mader ran in 2000. And didn't Jatur take a lot of votes? I think Hudey will do the same thing this time. So I hope Kreyr doesn't run.
we've reached the Naydeer!
Blaming Nader is absurd.
Blame the Democratic party for not appealing to those 'progressive' voters.
but then again it looks like he got himself a new hobby besides politics
Paging Mr. Zenith, Please come to the Red Hotline Phone... Paging Mr. Zenith."
I figure he's totally got the stick figure vote
Originally posted by Akumulator
http://www.ralphdontrun.net/
http://www.georgedontrun.net/
We're in a two party system for precisely the same reason that I think it would be folly for you to vote for Nadir . . . namely, that we Don't have a parlementary system
we have two parties because everybody knows that is they don't vote for their guy then the other party will win
in which case you're your own worst enemy. YOU perpetuate the two party system with your beliefs and defensive voting. next time you're frustrated with the two party system, look in a mirror for who to blame.
Originally posted by alcimedes
in which case you're your own worst enemy. YOU perpetuate the two party system with your beliefs and defensive voting. next time you're frustrated with the two party system, look in a mirror for who to blame.
Pffft.
With all due respect, Alcimedes, you don't know what you're talking about. Duverger's Law states that a winner-take-all or plurality voting system naturally leads to a two-party system. It's ridiculous to blame people's attitudes when the underlying structure is not present for allowing third party candidates to succeed. We need real voting system reform in this country.
I would suggest reading "The Fairest Vote of All," the Scientific American article that Kickaha recommended. It provides a good overview of voting systems and suggests an alternative to our terrible system. I can forward it to you if you'd like.
(replace w/alcimedes)
i'd be interested to read how a system that has to be two parties has eleceted third party canidates in the past, according to this "law".
however, i disagree with basically the entire text, and i didn't really see where it said that you'd always be stuck with a two party system in a majority rules election style.
in fact, the first example they gave (of the French election) had a majority rule setup, where a non major party canidate made it to the final round.
the article also doesn't account for the fact that third part senators, congressmen and govenors have been elected many times.
the only ones who lock anyone into a two party system are defensive voters.
Originally posted by BRussell
I'd be interested in reading that.
But let me state clearly: I hop Nadar doesn't run. Because if Nadir runs, then Nedir will make me mad. That damn Nador. Didn't Nudir run in 2000? I think Mader ran in 2000. And didn't Jatur take a lot of votes? I think Hudey will do the same thing this time. So I hope Kreyr doesn't run.
That is so funny that I was laughing as I was laying in bed last night thinking about it . .. it was hard not to wake my wife, so i tried not to laugh which just made me laugh harder . . heehee
I would suspect that, after the 2000 election debacle, those who are opposed to Bush would be less inclined to vote for a candidate who is generally regarded as unelectable.
In the end, I find all of this pretty sickening. The very idea that good folks would tell a third-party candidate not to run is simply anti-democratic. If Nadir (or Perot, or anyone else) wants to run, he should be able to run. If people worry about Nadir "taking votes away from X" (as if those votes belong to anyone in the first place), they should wage a campaign informing voters why they shouldn't vote for him. It's that simple.
I think that a few things are worth noting:
1) In the last election, GWB was generally regarded by Democrats are a joke of a candidate who was unelectable on his face.
2) The more left leaning liberals didn't particular feel any harm would be done by voting for Nader, partially because of #1, and partially because they tend to see little difference between Republicans and Democrats at the national level.
3) The divisive split indicated by the voters in 2000 (i.e. that the country seemed ot have been "split down the middle") is less indicative, I think, of a political polarization as it is of a) the weakness of both candidates in 2000 and b) the increasingly small degree of difference between a Republican and a Democrat at the National level. (As an aside, this is why I always find it funny that people refer to Clinton as a liberal, since the hallmark of his "New Democrat-ness" was that he was effectively a conservative: NAFTA, balanced budgets, etc.)
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by alcimedes
i know it's the same tired argument, but we'll never get out of a two party system if people aren't ever willing to vote for a third party canidate.
Why in God's name would we not want a two party system? Two party systems are the most stable political entities out there. It avoids the need to form messy and unstable "coalition" government. The only potential weakness is the risk of "cohabitation."
I'll take the American/Britain democratic experience over that of the older French republics or Italy any day of the week.
not to mention if nader had gotten 5% of the vote he'd have been able to participate this year in the presidential debates. (i think it's 5%)
he would have completely destroyed Bush. [/B]
To participate in the debates you must be polling at least 15% in the Gallup polls. What you're thinking of is presidential matching funds from the Federal government. Those funds would have gone to the Green Party, not Nader. And they'd have done as little good for the Greens as they did for Buchanan's Reform Party in 2000 ? they're whacko far afield from the American center, which is a bit right of the Democrats, a bit left of the Republicans.
I hope Nader chokes on a sandwich or something and ends up in a coma for the next eleven months.
Kirk
Originally posted by alcimedes
however, i disagree with basically the entire text, and i didn't really see where it said that you'd always be stuck with a two party system in a majority rules election style.
That's simply reality. On a large scale, first-past-the-post systems produce a two party system. All pure FPTP systems are two party (America, Britain being the only two really important ones). FPTP systems encourage coalitions to form prior to elections, not afterwards, since the difference is getting one less vote or one more vote may be that of getting no representation and total representation in a certain area. Therefore, coalitions form early, and coalesce into two parties, which are broad-based parties representing, each, the views of 40% or more of the population. These coalitions are long-lasting, surviving over the course of multiple election cycles, and thus are solid and do not fracture easily.
In most representational systems, you aren't even voting for candidates, but for parties, which are then allocated seats, which they fill based on candidate rolls. Thus any party that can get more than 5% or so of the populace to vote for them can be guaranteed representation. Coalitions form after the elections in representational model systems. However, the coalitions are much weaker, making the governments much less stable.
in fact, the first example they gave (of the French election) had a majority rule setup, where a non major party canidate made it to the final round.
The French do not have a true FPTP system, but one of run-offs, where only the second vote is truly FPTP (though any two-person race of course produces not only a FPTP winner, but a majority winner). The French system is one where the "coalitions" so to speak form mid-election, between the initial vote and the run-off. This fosters a multi-party system, but one in which two parties dominate over smaller parties, as is the case in France. It is a hybrid system (and the system most prone to problematic cohabitation).
the article also doesn't account for the fact that third part senators, congressmen and govenors have been elected many times.
Actually, given the number of congressional, senatorial and gubernatorial seats elected in any given voting year, the number of third party wins is miniscule, and represents the fact that in America, like-minded individuals often gravitate to certain communities. However, the ability of a third party to elect one congressman out of 435, or even a governor, speaks more to regional differences than to an inaccuracy of the laws regarding FPTP voting systems.
The American presidential system, particularly, requires two parties, and no more, lest a candidate fail to win a majority in the Electoral College. The only instance where this happened was in 1824, a transitional year where the Federalist Party had floundered, and the Republican Party of Jefferson (not to be confused with the GOP) was beginning its painful split into the Democrats, the National Republicans and (later) the Whigs. There were several credible presidential candidates that year, all running atop factions of the Jeffersonian Republican Party. It was a disaster in which the wrong person was put in the White House.
Aside from 1824, the only times you see third parties emerging in any real way are when a major party splits, almost inevitably leading to the defeat of that party (the GOP in 1908 and 1992, the Democrats in 1944 - though Truman narrowly won) or when you enter a period of majority party displacement, such as in the 1850s and 1860, when the Republicans first split from, then destroyed and replaced the Whigs.
Other than that, third parties in presidential politics serve no useful function (and the above functions are hardly useful, either). A third party by its very nature is a party attempting to promote an orthodoxy or platform that is far afield from the American center, otherwise its positions would have been long ago absorbed by one of the majority parties.
A third party can never win an election. It can only cause the majority party closest to its views to lose.
Kirk